Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #86885

Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 14:32:41 -0500
olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/12/2022 2:26 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 14:17:35 -0500
> > olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> On 10/12/2022 1:30 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:  
> >>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 13:25:34 -0500
> >>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>      
> >>>> On 10/12/2022 1:07 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:  
> >>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 13:04:17 -0500
> >>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>         
> >>>>>> On 10/12/2022 12:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:  
> >>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 12:38:31 -0500
> >>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>            
> >>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 12:24 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:  
> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 10:08:20 -0500
> >>>>>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>               
> >>>>>>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim
> >>>>>>>>>> paragraph looks correct:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>          If H does correctly determine that its correct
> >>>>>>>>>> simulation of D would never stop running unless aborted,
> >>>>>>>>>> would it be correct for H to abort this simulation and
> >>>>>>>>>> report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of
> >>>>>>>>>> configurations?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider
> >>>>>>>>>> referenced in this paper.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review
> >>>>>>>>>> this paper presented to him.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> *The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael
> >>>>>>>>>> Sipser*  
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Whilst the paragraph you sent to Sipser is correct the
> >>>>>>>>> crucial detail that you are glossing over is that you do
> >>>>>>>>> NOT perform a correct simulation for all inputs:
> >>>>>>>>>               
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Complete halt deciding system (Visual Studio Project) Sipser
> >>>>>>>> version. (a) x86utm operating system
> >>>>>>>> (b) x86 emulator adapted from libx86emu to compile under
> >>>>>>>> Windows (c) Several halt deciders and their sample inputs
> >>>>>>>> contained within Halt7.c
> >>>>>>>> https://liarparadox.org/2022_10_08.zip
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Anyone with sufficient software engineering skill can easily
> >>>>>>>> verify that Sipser_D is correctly simulated by Sipser_H and
> >>>>>>>> that Sipser_D remains stuck in infinitely recursive
> >>>>>>>> simulation unless and until Sipser_H aborts its correct
> >>>>>>>> simulation of Sipser_D.  
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You chose to not fully address my reply by snipping the
> >>>>>>> important part so I will give you another chance:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Whilst the paragraph you sent to Sipser is correct the crucial
> >>>>>>> detail that you are glossing over is that you do NOT perform a
> >>>>>>> correct simulation for all inputs:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> void Px(void (*x)())
> >>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>> 	(void) H(x, x);
> >>>>>>> 	return;
> >>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The correct simulation of Px above is to simulate Px halting.
> >>>>>>>            
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Not at all. It must be a correct simulation of the actual input
> >>>>>> by the simulating halt decider.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> int main() { H(Px,Px); }
> >>>>>> (a) The executed H simulates Px that calls a simulated H
> >>>>>> (b) that simulates Px that calls a simulated H
> >>>>>> (c) that simulates Px that calls a simulated H ...  
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes indeed it must be a correct simulation and a correct
> >>>>> simulation of Px is to simulate Px halting.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>         
> >>>>
> >>>> Sipser agreed that the correct simulation of Px by H is the
> >>>> correct measure of the behavior of Px.  
> >>>
> >>> Of course he did but you don't do a correct simulation of Px: a
> >>> correct simulation of Px is to simulate Px halting as that is how
> >>> Px behaves.
> >>>
> >>> /Flibble
> >>>      
> >>
> >> A correct simulation of Px by H derives the execution trace that I
> >> specified. Every line of the execution trace of the x86 emulation
> >> of Px by H precisely corresponds to exactly what the x86 source
> >> code of Px specifies.
> >>
> >> void Px(void (*x)())
> >> {
> >>     (void) H(x, x);
> >>     return;
> >> }
> >>
> >> int main()
> >> {
> >>     Output("Input_Halts = ", H(Px, Px));
> >> }
> >>
> >> _Px()
> >> [00001256] 55             push ebp
> >> [00001257] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
> >> [00001259] 8b4508         mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >> [0000125c] 50             push eax      // push 2nd arg to H
> >> [0000125d] 8b4d08         mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> >> [00001260] 51             push ecx      // push 1st arg to H
> >> [00001261] e8b0fcffff     call 00000f16 // call H
> >> [00001266] 83c408         add esp,+08
> >> [00001269] 5d             pop ebp
> >> [0000126a] c3             ret
> >> Size in bytes:(0021) [0000126a]
> >>
> >> H: Begin Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:111fcb
> >> Address_of_H:f16
> >> [00001256][00111fb7][00111fbb] 55             push ebp
> >> [00001257][00111fb7][00111fbb] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
> >> [00001259][00111fb7][00111fbb] 8b4508         mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >> [0000125c][00111fb3][00001256] 50             push eax      //
> >> push Px [0000125d][00111fb3][00001256] 8b4d08         mov
> >> ecx,[ebp+08] [00001260][00111faf][00001256] 51             push
> >> ecx      // push Px [00001261][00111fab][00001266] e8b0fcffff
> >> call 00000f16 // call H H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation
> >> Detected Simulation Stopped
> >>
> >> We can see that the execution trace of the first six instructions
> >> of Px exactly matches the x86 source-code of Px. We can also see
> >> that Px was about to call H(Px,Px) again and this would repeat the
> >> cycle of the first six instructions of Px.  
> > 
> > There are various methods of simulating an input: you have chosen an
> > incorrect method of simulation; if we substitute your H for another
> > H which uses a correct method of simulation, Px will correctly halt.
> > 
> > An SHD which uses a correct method of simulation would be the
> > Flibble Signaling Halt Decider (TM).
> > 
> > /Flibble
> >   
> 
> Everyone that is sufficiently technically competent at software 
> engineering can verify that H does correctly simulate Px on the basis 
> that the line-by-line execution trace of the simulation of Px by H 
> exactly matches the line-by-line x86 source-code of Px.
> 
> People that are not sufficiently technically competent might use 
> double-talk, misdirection and vagueness to provide a baseless
> rebuttal.

A valid halt decider MUST return a decision to its caller, in this case
Px, in finite time; Px will then halt, correctly.  Your H does not do
this so is not a valid halt decider.

/Flibble

Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 10:08 -0500
  Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 11:48 -0500
  Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 12:04 -0500
  Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-12 18:24 +0100
    Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-12 12:38 -0500
      Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-12 18:52 +0100
        Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 13:04 -0500
          Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-12 19:07 +0100
            Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 13:25 -0500
              Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-12 19:30 +0100
                Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 14:17 -0500
                Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-12 20:26 +0100
                Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 14:32 -0500
                Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-12 20:50 +0100
  Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider (Ben's support) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-20 22:17 -0500
  Ben agrees that Sipser_H is correct according to its halt status criteria olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-21 15:03 -0500
    Re: Ben agrees that Sipser_H is correct according to its halt status criteria Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-10-22 05:19 -0700
      Re: Ben agrees that Sipser_H is correct according to its halt status criteria [Paul N Lies] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-22 14:20 -0500
      Paul N is a liar or does not bother to pay attention olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-22 17:10 -0500

csiph-web